William Tait wrote:
> Enough, Charles! When one doesn't understand something or someone,
> there are two ways to go: One is to decide that the author is mad. The
> other is more humble---but often more realistic.
Or as Arthur C. Clarke might have put it, any sufficiently advanced
thinking is indistinguishable from lunacy.
I have seen no argument against eccentric reasoning that does not
contain some element of circular reasoning.
Vaughan Pratt